Reply With Quote
^
For once we agree
[QUOTE=mfanatic;3658532]Ok simple break down:
IN THEIR PRIMES:
Parker > Rondo
Manu > Allen
RJ + Finely off the bench > Paul Pierce + Tony Allen?
Duncan > KG
Big Mike < Sheed
bench, PRIME Theo Ratliff + Finely + BOWEN (If resigns) + Mason + Hill >
Prime Perkins, House, and Davis.
Spurs > Celtics easily.
Parker > Williams
Manu > Parker
RJ < Lebron
Duncan > AV
Ratliff + Big Mike off the bench > Shaq
there is no way dice>shaq u must be high or mentaly re ed
and Ray>Ginobli jus sayin the truth
Shaq isn't going to play 48 Minutes a game. Big Z was trash in his Prime anyway. Prime Theo Ratliff + Mcdyess > Shaq + Big Z. We'd be up and down the court faster than they could make it to half-court
You haven't been watching NBA too long have you?
Honestly, I wouldn't really think so.
He would have the advantage, but when you have prime Jefferson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, and Finley on the court at the same time as you, your not gonna get many touches
You do realize that there's only 5 players allowed on the court per team in basketball right?
the le of this thread say " ALL PLAYERS in their prime time, which teams the best"
^^you see it says All! not starting 5
he must be talkin bout sumthing else certainley not the NBA
Are you two going out?
I can't believe everyone here is really picking the Cavs over the Celts or Spurs because it's one of them, not the Cavs.
Yes Shaq was extremely dominant in his heyday and LeBron will be too, but the rest of that roster blows. PRIME Tim Duncan, circa 2002, averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks. Timmy D in his prime was the best PF of all-time and a defensive mastermind. He could hold his own versus Shaq defensively. Prime RJ could do his best on LeBron. But you have to think of it this way. The Cavs have two amazing players in their primes. Outside of James and O'Neal, they got nothing.
The Spurs, meanwhile have the greatest PF ever, a prime Dice which like most have said is Stoudemire with defense, and add in prime versions of Ginobili and Parker as well as Finley off the bench? You wouldn't be able to contain that offense and their defense would still be impressive with Duncan and McDyess holding down the paint.
Shaq and LeBron ain't gonna do it by themselves.
Dude, Big Z was a freaking beast before injuries are you kidding me? That would be a disgusting combo in their primes.
Wait, who the is Big Mike?
Here's where I see the Cavs being the team to beat.
Teams of five superstars just don't work. Teams with four main guys don't really work either. Until the Spurs, teams with three star players were perceived to have too many guys that needed the ball. That's why two superstars with the right role players often did the job. Michael and Scottie then Shaq and Kobe. Even early Spurs with Tim and David. We've seen these super teams before with the 2004 Lakers and the early 2000 Kings where there's an all star caliber player at basically every position. They'll be very, very good teams. But, they won't necessarily win it all or be unbeatable.
Would McDyess have the advantage over Varejao? Sure, offensively. But, how much will he dominate with 10 shot attempts a game? Could Richard Jefferson hold his own against LeBron? Maybe compared to other small forwards, but not enough to call it even, and he won't really be able to make LeBron work on defense too much unless you're going to really take the ball out of Parker's, Ginobili's, and Duncan's hands on offense. RJ would probably get 10 or so FGA as well. You don't dominate a match-up when you don't have enough touches to make it a huge difference.
Even in this hypothetical, this is still basketball and still a team game. Dice in his prime and RJ in his prime are very good players. Dice isn't going to put up 20/10 on a team where he's the fourth or fifth option on offense and on a team he plays next to Tim Duncan. He just won't. With his three prime years in Denver, none of those three Nuggets teams had winning records or went to the playoffs. On a better team with better teammates, even the athletic freak that McDyess was would not put up those same numbers. Does he have an advantage over Varejao? Absolutely. You're still talking probably the difference between Dice putting up something like 11 points and 9 rebounds to Varejao putting up 8 points and 8 rebounds. Not the difference some of you think it is because of the fact that basketball is still a team game.
Despite the fact that Duncan and Parker and Ginobili are selfless team players, they are still the main guys who will get most of the touches and shots. That's just how it is.
When you realize that, you can see why a team that has two dominant players who will together carry the scoring load can actually work better. And, to say the Cavs have nothing after Shaq and LeBron is really naive and lacks bigger picture analysis. Mo Williams and Anthony Parker are 40% three point shooters. They will get plenty of kickouts for open jumpers. Varejao can finish inside when teams double team Shaq. He's actually a better player than some would give him credit for. And both Anthony Parker and Anderson Varejao are above average defenders. They aren't going to stop the likes of Manu and Dice, but they'll do solid jobs without requiring too much help from teammates.
Parker would and should dominate Mo Williams, but not more so than LeBron should dominate RJ/Finley. Same thing with Duncan and Shaq.
Two of the most unstoppable basketball players in this generation of NBA basketball on the same team, both in their prime with role players that know how to be role players. That's why the Cavs would win.
People will crucify me for this... but the season Shaq produced in 2000 is overrated... Don't get me wrong, the guy truly deserved an MVP award that year, but to say that he produced the most dominant season of the decade (and thus make a hyperbole of his supposed greatness) is stretching the truth beyond reality. That word, "dominance," only comes to mind because The 'Big' Mouth himself (aka Shaq) coined it as a means of self-glorification... everybody latched on to it since.
How was Shaq that much better only one year removed from being swept in the 1999 Playoffs??? Does one year much difference make in the context of primes??? The reason why the Lakers were so much better than everyone else from 2000-2002 is because they began to incorporate Tex Winter's offense, because of Phil Jackson's arrival, Kobe's exponential growth, and because Lakers management decided to surround Shaq with the clutchest 3-point bombers in the league (Horry, Fox, Fisher, Rice, Shaw), while getting rid of Van-Exel's cancerous locker-room personality...
And if they had been as dominant as some Laker fans here are suggesting then the Lakers wouldn't have needed miracles to get past the 2000 Blazers and the 2002 Kings (talk about revisionist-history)... In fact, I don't recall the 1996 Bulls being taken to 7 games at all... now that was dominance.
Duncan was producing near quadruple doubles in his prime... statistically speaking of course... Which is why I would take Duncan in his prime over Shaq.... Duncan was a greater player than Shaq IMO, simply because he posessed excellent footwork and could take you off-the dribble, shoot from 17ft in, work with either hand, boasted a forray of up and under moves around the basket, and was deadly shooting off the glass... to top it off, he anchored one of the best defensive teams in the history of the league... Shaquille simply overpowered and dunked over folks while possessing a variety of baby-hooks 5 feet around the bucket... their free-throw defficiencies were notorious - so that's a wash (even though Duncan's numbers are several percentage points higher than Shaq's)...
Fact of the matter is that the Spurs have won les with a core of three players... Duncan dominated in 1999 and 2003, Ginobili dominated in 2005, and Parker dominated in 2007... now imagine all of them at their peak... and then add a pre-injury Dice, an all-star level Finley and Richard Jefferson to the mix... This is way too much talent, way too much versatility, and proven chemistry....
No matter how great two players are.... 5 great players will always trump 2 great players any day of the week...
Spurs vs. Celtics
Duncan will end up with 6 championship rings before it's all said and done... no one will dare undervalue or underrate him then...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 08-28-2009 at 05:01 PM.
Typically 5 superstars won't work, but prime McDyess and RJ are still selfless and would not care too much one can assume. That is why they would be better. You have guys with incredible talent, with advantages over most of the positions that do not care what options they are and that are all versatile.
If Shaq got into foul trouble or was off, it would have to be Lebron. The Spurs team would have guys who can step up at any given time. Yes, on average, Dice and RJ might have limited touches, but on any given night they could dominate the guy guarding them.
You cannot say the same for the Cavs.
This was the first thing that came to my mind when the too many superstars argument was brought up. Don't forget that Finley off the bench would dominate any other teams best bench player offensively and Ratliff down low would keep the Spurs from having any sort of dropoff defensively around the rim.
You can enter in countless other wrinkles to the arguments once you start talking about players fouling out and what players are on the bench. The original post and discussion is about the starting five of each team. And, thus, that's what we have been basing our arguments on predominantly.
The fact that RJ and Dice are selfless players doesn't change the fact that on a team with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, they are role players. Being role players, despite any advantage they have in their match-ups, they can't expose it nearly as much as if they were the #1 or #2 option on offense. They simply can't do that with 8-12 shot attempts a game. The mismatche advantages are mitigated because of that.
Once you start talking about "if" this or that, the discussion takes a turn into more and more hypothetical scenarios. "If Shaq fouls out, you only have LeBron." Well, what if Shaq doesn't get into foul trouble but Duncan does? What then?
Look, I know Spurs fans desperately want to feel like they are justified in giving the edge to the Spurs team. So, it's fine if that's what you truly believe.
Fact is, no one on any of the teams mentioned is stopping Shaq or LeBron. In their primes, they are the two most dominant players of all the players on all the teams mentioned. And, you have them on the same team. They have two high percentage three point shooters and two solid to very good defenders as role players who are not only accustomed to playing secondary roles, but are comfortable with playing secondary roles. To me, that trumps the other teams.
Since when in their primes has anyone dunked 25 times a game Jam? You are giving far too much credit to the "unstoppable" part of your argument.
If that were the case Shaq would have gotten the ball every time and scored. Same with the Lebron. Yet Shaq did not and Lebron got shut down by Bruce Bowen. It has been done.
The Spurs could certainly double Lebron in this scenario and get away with it. The Cavs have no way to stop the Spurs from scoring. None.
Hyperbole. And, that was a post from much earlier.
The Spurs can double the same way teams doubled Duncan with 40% shooters all out on the three point line. Wasn't a good strategy for many teams.
I would have to say either the Celtics/Spurs
In the 2007, the team Lebron got to the finals with:
Sasha Pavlovic shot 40% from 3
Daniel Gibson shot 42% from 3
That is comparable to what Antony Parker gives you (and Sasha is just as good at getting to the rim as him) and what Mo gives you (although Mo is a better all around scorer). But from a spacing and keeping guys honest standpoint, it is comparable. It did not work and the Spurs could double then and in this scenario. Tim could do enough against Shaq. Especially if you are not going to bring up the hypothetical situations like foul trouble as you mentioned.
Except the teams weren't full of uber athletic, committed defenders with skill and size and speed. And Tim is a much better passer than most. Shaq and Lebron are both excellent though.
Last edited by DPG21920; 08-28-2009 at 06:11 PM.
Anderson Varejao is just too much of a liability on offense. The Spurs can choose to leave him open and force him to beat them. It can be done, especially with the recovery speed and athleticism of Dice and RJ and Manu.
Same cannot be said with the Spurs. You cannot double and leave anyone on the Spurs. You might say McDyess, but he is 10x better on offense than Andy. He could get to the rim much better and he had a serviceable jump shot. Not nearly as good as now, but still decent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions